NFHS Mechanics Question (3)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In 3-man the official near the table is not responsible for the shooter. He is at half-court for the first of 2 free throws, which is halfway between both coaches, 16-20 ft. Additionally he can position himself to speak to the coach(es) if need be. In 2-man, the new trail has no leeway to do anything because he needs to be in position to monitor the free throw shooter.

Oh dear! I certainly hope that you aren't allowing the Trail to wander around out near the division line. According the the NFHS manual that isn't even close to where he belongs. Page 58 states that he should be at approximately the 28' mark in the frontcourt and that he should be assisting with FT violations and fouls. The only reason to be elsewhere is if there are players in the backcourt who require observation.
Having the Trail simply leave and go talk to a coach in near the division line or in the backcourt is to admit that he isn't needed and is having no involvement whatsoever with the observation of the FT activity.

Now that may be possible in 3-man because there are two other officials to handle those responsibilities, but I seriously doubt that was the intent of the system. It is just a liberty that some people take when working 3-man, and frankly it annoys me because I perceive it as that individual not doing his job or pulling his fair share of the load. As the C I don't want to be watching the players outside of the 3-pt line. That's the Trail's job. I want to be able to concentrate on the FT shooter and the players in my lane-spaces. I'm not interested in having to do my task as well as cover the Trail's responsibilities because he is off chatting with a coach.

You do rightly point out that the Trail has some important things to do in the 2-man system and can't be distracted from these duties by the desire of either of the coaches for a conversation. I agree that there is much less leeway with only two officials on the court than three. Your focus has to be maintained where it should be or you will certainly miss things.
But if the responsibilities of the Trail in 2-man during FT administration are so important, wouldn't it be better to have two people sharing that load? That would mean that the Trail in 3-man should remain in the frontcourt and make a meaningful contribution rather than abandoning the C to fulfill the task of the 2-man Trail. If the extra official isn't going to give this person any help, then why the heck is he out there?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In 3-man the lead and center can glance over at the table/benches to pick up any subs or T-O requests that the Trail might have missed.

And in 2-man the Lead can glance over at the table/benches to pick up any subs or T-O requests that the Trail might have missed.
It's just that there is only one person to do this rather than two, so it's a little more difficult.
It seems to me that your argument is merely saying that everything can be seen better by more officials, which is basically stating the obvious, and so why don't we go to 4-man or 5-man like HS football?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Comparing the trail in 3-man and 2-man is apple/oranges.

Actually that can be said of comparing ANY aspect of 3-man and 2-man. With one fewer person, there is much less flexibility and far less leeway for people to be glancing around at things outside of their primary coverage areas.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Oh dear! I certainly hope that you aren't allowing the Trail to wander around out near the division line.

Did you miss the part where he said "the first of two?" And yes, we do that around here. If there's another free throw (or two), the T goes to the division line near the jump circle and then moves for the last free throw. No responsibilities are ignored -- unless you consider it vital we closely monitor a free throw where no rebound is contested...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Did you miss the part where he said "the first of two?" And yes, we do that around here. If there's another free throw (or two), the T goes to the division line near the jump circle and then moves for the last free throw. No responsibilities are ignored -- unless you consider it vital we closely monitor a free throw where no rebound is contested...

Thanks Rich, you saved me some keystrokes.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Did you miss the part where he said "the first of two?" And yes, we do that around here. If there's another free throw (or two), the T goes to the division line near the jump circle and then moves for the last free throw. No responsibilities are ignored -- unless you consider it vital we closely monitor a free throw where no rebound is contested...

Nope, didn't miss that at all. In fact, people shirking their duties during the first FT is one of my biggest pet peeves.

It seems that these folks feel that they are entitled to take a break and go have a chat and a cup of coffee with one of the coaches because they've done their job and it ended with the calling of the foul.

BTW just a couple of seasons ago the NCAA came out with a directive for the positioning of the LEAD during the first FT. They stated that he belonged in the same proper position as during the last FT. He shouldn't be standing along the lane just below the first lane space. He should be in proper position observing the players for fouls and violations. Furthermore, the author stated the people who didn't adhere to this wouldn't be working the NCAA tournament.

The attitude being displayed here by some posters that the officials can be anywhere they please and watching whatever they wish during the first FT because the chance that something which needs to be penalized is slim is way too cavalier for my taste. It also looks unprofessional.

IAABO wants the T at the division line on the first of two FTs. And also says the L should never be on the court.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

IAABO wants the T at the division line on the first of two FTs. And also says the L should never be on the court.

I guess that IAABO got this one half right. Their stance on the Lead must come from their leadership who mostly work college ball and have had this point stressed to them lately. I can't imagine why the principle would be different for the Trail. If the NCAA brass doesn't want the Lead out of position for the first FT, why would anyone think that it would be okay for the Trail or Center to be out of position for that FT attempt?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't normally agree with IAABO, but they sure got this one right. This stance must come from their leadership who mostly work college ball and have had these points stressed to them lately.

Now I'm confused. I thought that's what everyone else was saying they did and you were saying it's wrong?

In any event, it is the proper mechanic in 3-person games in IL -- T at the division line during the first of two FTs unless s/he needs to converse with either coach (any such conversations should not detract from T's responsibilities). T moves to the 28' mark for the second (last) FT.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Now I'm confused. I thought that's what everyone else was saying they did and you were saying it's wrong?

In any event, it is the proper mechanic in 3-person games in IL -- T at the division line during the first of two FTs unless s/he needs to converse with either coach (any such conversations should not detract from T's responsibilities). T moves to the 28' mark for the second (last) FT.

Sorry, Bob, I didn't get much sleep and misread the first part of that post. I concentrated on the second half and incorrectly processed the first half as matching that principle.

I've now gone back and edited my previous response.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Nope, but I am sure he will walk down beside the official for a quick question. I have responded to questions from coaches without taking my eyes of players.

How do you do that for the coach at the other end of the court?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The attitude being displayed here by some posters that the officials can be anywhere they please and watching whatever they wish during the first FT because the chance that something which needs to be penalized is slim is way to cavalier for my taste. It also looks unprofessional.

No, that's just your twisted interpretation. My supervisors don't have a problem with the trail in a 3-man crew addressing the coach in the backcourt during the 1st of 2 free throws as long as they are in position for the 2nd. They also expect the lead to recognize if the Trail is addressing the coaches or table and ensure the Trail is ready before administering any "live" free throws (single throw; 1-and-1; 2nd of 2; 3rd of 3).

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In one breath you admit that it is harder for two officials to look around and see everyone that they need to even prior to the administration of the FT, yet you agree with Rich and think that it is okay to have the third official wander away from his prescribed position and leave his TWO partners to handle those tasks despite your acknowledgment of their difficulty in doing so!

Find me a direct quote where I said anything you just typed here. You will hard-pressed to do so. If you are going to para-phase my thoughts please so do so at least semi-accurately.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Hmmmmmmm...... with such an attitude do you even see the value in having that third official on the court? Do you think that he's only there to help out on certain plays or a select times? Is your idea of 3-man that it is basically 2-man with an extra helper who makes calls when he is needed, and that he isn't needed during dead ball periods or less active times such as FT administration?

I'm not surprised by Rich expressing such a sentiment because he predominately works 2-man.

The rest of us should remember that 3-man isn't supposed to be lazy 2-man.

PS How many times has FT administration been a POE in the past few years? Could it be because people aren't taking it seriously and think that it is time to take a rest?

WTF are you talking about? Mentally lazy would best describe what your just typed b/c you just pulled some sh!t out of thin air instead of actually taking the time to read and comprehend what has actually been written.

[IREFU2]

I cant ever remembering having to address a coach in the BC during a FT as the trail. But, I have address them in FC as the trail on several occations while in the trail position. This is both on the college and high school level. Just my 2 cents, not speaking for anyone else.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

I cant ever remembering having to address a coach in the BC during a FT as the trail. But, I have address them in FC as the trail on several occations while in the trail position. This is both on the college and high school level. Just my 2 cents, not speaking for anyone else.

So you've never had a coach in the backcourt who wanted to ask a question?

[IREFU2]

Not that I can think of right now. The last coach that had a question that was located in the back court, actually came into front court complaining and I stopped the game and walked him back to his box in the BC.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My supervisors don't have a problem with the trail in a 3-man crew addressing the coach in the backcourt during the 1st of 2 free throws as long as they are in position for the 2nd. They also expect the lead to recognize if the Trail is addressing the coaches or table and ensure the Trail is ready before administering any "live" free throws (single throw; 1-and-1; 2nd of 2; 3rd of 3).

Where is Jurassic when I need him? This is fully deserving of a "Lah me."

Are you freaking kidding? Your supervisors are not only fools, they are doing you a great disservice by allowing you to instill such a bad habit in your game.

What they are stating by accepting that practice is that there is absolutely nothing for the Trail official in a 3-man crew to do prior to the ball becoming live on the final FT. In other words, they are sure that those two other guys out there can handle everything and anything perfectly. That's just BS and you know it. Every trainer on the planet stresses the importance of being vigilant during dead ball periods. I'm sure that you've heard that those are the times when the most problems arise.

Would your supervisor have a problem if the Trail official went over and got a drink of water during this time? How about if he left the court and went to the drinking fountain in the hallway? He's not doing any officiating then anyway.

Then to state that the Lead should wait until the Trail is finished talking with the coach and has returned to where he belongs prior to making the ball live is utter nonsense. That's just giving the coach a free time-out. If he's smart he can rest his players any time he wants just by asking a few silly questions. There's rule against a team preventing the ball from being made promptly live. Are your supers aware of that?

I guess that in southern VA the officials allow the coaches to hold up the game and resume it at the pace that they desire and when they are good and ready. This should work wonderfully for the slow-tempo team and annoy the heck out of the coach of the full-court pressing side. And I thought that a basketball game took so long because of all the media time-outs.

Thankfully, I officiated in northern VA. Lah-freakin'-me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Where is Jurassic when I need him? This is fully deserving of a "Lah me."

Are you freaking kidding? Your supervisors are not only fools, they are doing you a great disservice by allowing you to instill such a bad habit in your game.

What they are stating by accepting that practice is that there is absolutely nothing for the Trail official in a 3-man crew to do prior to the ball becoming live on the final FT. In other words, they are sure that those two other guys out there can handle everything and anything perfectly. That's just BS and you know it. Every trainer on the planet stresses the importance of being vigilant during dead ball periods. I'm sure that you've heard that those are the times when the most problems arise.

Would your supervisor have a problem if the Trail official went over and got a drink of water during this time? How about if he left the court and went to the drinking fountain in the hallway? He's not doing any officiating then anyway.

Then to state that the Lead should wait until the Trail is finished talking with the coach and has returned to where he belongs prior to making the ball live is utter nonsense. That's just giving the coach a free time-out. If he's smart he can rest his players any time he wants just by asking a few silly questions. There's rule against a team preventing the ball from being made promptly live. Are your supers aware of that?

I guess that in southern VA the officials allow the coaches to hold up the game and resume it at the pace that they desire and when they are good and ready. This should work wonderfully for the slow-tempo team and annoy the heck out of the coach of the full-court pressing side. And I thought that a basketball game took so long because of all the media time-outs.

Thankfully, I officiated in northern VA. Lah-freakin'-me.

Well, 2 of those supervisors are multiple Final Four officials but I'll pass along your displeasure.

And where do you get the idiotic premise that every free throw requires an extended conversation with a coach or that the trail spends all free throws commesurating with table personnel? Surely not from anything I've written to date. You do have a Georgetown education so I'm sure your comprehension skills can't be that lacking. Or was hyperbole a major at GU?

And I guess if you are ever addressing a problem at the table you pre-game for your partners to go ahead and administer the free throws and you'll catch up with game action later?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, 2 of those supervisors are multiple Final Four officials but I'll pass along your displeasure.

Please do because what they are teaching is irresponsible. It's that damn big-dog attitude of I can get away with doing this because I've been doing this for so many years and I'm that good. I'd guess that they are old school officials who don't care for all the precision in the mechanics and adherence to the rulesbook that is being demanded by the NCAA brass these days.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And where do you get the idiotic premise that every free throw requires an extended conversation with a coach? Do you ever use common sense in your posts or was hyperbole a major at Georgetown?

The Jesuits are big teachers of Sophist philosophy.
But for the record, I don't think that ANY FT situation requires an extended conversation with a coach. If I ever had to wait for you to finish chatting with a coach before administering a FT, I'd be so ticked off that the next time that I threw you the ball it would hit your shoetops.

When a coach won't let something go, I've used, "You'll see it on the tape, and if you don't like it, I'm sure that you send it to X," and that's the end of it. Does it make the coaches happy that I won't coddle them? Nope. Do I care? Nope. I've got a game to administer. I'm not trying to be their best friend or make their Christmas card list.
I guess you're the type who feels their pain.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And I guess if you are ever addressing a problem at the table you pre-game for your partners to go ahead and administer the free throws and you'll catch up?

See your own point above.

PS The table is part of the officiating crew. If they have a problem or a question, WE have a problem or a question. That's vastly different from a coach with a gripe or an ulterior motive slowing down the game. I know that the table personnel isn't trying to gain a competitive advantage by making an inquiry.